Question

read this excerpt from a passage and the references entry for the source listed below the excerpt. according to wikipedia, humans are affected by plastic pollution, too. in fact, being exposed to chemicals in plastics disrupts the thyroid hormone axis and other hormones. plastic pollution. (2017, nov. 12) in wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=plastic_pollution&oldid=822757202 is this source credible or not credible, and why or why not? this source is credible because it comes from a reputable online source. this source is not credible because anyone can post or edit information on wikipedia, whether or not they have expertise in the subject. this source is not credible because only primary sources should be trusted for evidence in a research paper. this source is credible because it was written recently and is not outdated.

Explanation:

To determine the credibility of the Wikipedia source for a research paper, we analyze the options:

• The first option is incorrect because Wikipedia is not considered a reputable source for academic research due to its open - editing nature.
• The second option is correct. Wikipedia allows anyone to post or edit information, regardless of their expertise. This means the information may not be accurate or reliable, so it's not a credible source for evidence in a research paper.
• The third option is incorrect. Primary sources aren't the only ones to be trusted, and the main issue with Wikipedia is its open - editing, not the type of source (it's a secondary, crowdsourced source).
• The fourth option is incorrect. The recency of the source isn't the main reason for its lack of credibility; the open - editing aspect is more relevant.

Answer:

This source is not credible because anyone can post or edit information on Wikipedia, whether or not they have expertise in the subject.